The Courts Are Going To Decide Whether Corporations Have A Right To 'Practice' Religionhttp://www.businessinsider.com/do-corporations-have-religious-rights-2013-1/comments
en-usWed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500Tue, 03 Mar 2015 18:44:00 -0500Erin Fuchshttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e4c3c86bb3f7931a000018berickWed, 02 Jan 2013 18:33:28 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e4c3c86bb3f7931a000018
Continuing my previous comment, people aren't seeing where this "moral objection" can lead. If a corporation doesn't have to include Contraceptives in a health plan, or to pay a tax that covers Contraceptives, another Corporation might be owned by someone who objects to transfusions, or to surgery in general. Will some people work for companies that only pay for faith-healing?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e4c34e6bb3f76a1a00001dberickWed, 02 Jan 2013 18:31:26 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e4c34e6bb3f76a1a00001d
"If religious objections to contraception and sterilization merit an exemption from federal law," Kaminer wrote, "then so could religious objections to hiring gay people or single mothers (or married ones, for that matter)".
Or blacks, or Jews, or women, ...http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e459f869bedd6f1f000017scott youngWed, 02 Jan 2013 11:02:00 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e459f869bedd6f1f000017
The line that corporations must comply with a "valid and neutral law" regardless of religion promotes the fallacy that there are "neutral" laws. All laws are based on moral assumptions, they aren't discovered under a rock somewhere. Kaminer's idea of a "neutral" law is not allowing companies to object to hiring a homosexual. As if that idea is not based on a moral assumption about sexuality? Humanists try to take the high ground of "neutrality" where no such ground exists. We all import our presuppositions upon reality.